The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

TaiidanTomcat said:
Geoff_B said:
So how many of you are signed up members of this LM officially sanctioned group ?

Do we think Airpower Australia is a LM officially sanctioned group?

http://www.ausairpower.net/raptor.html

Quite the advertisement there. Astro-turfing?

F-22-Banner-2009.png


Too subtle?

See, if the US rebuilds the production line Carlo thinks Australia will get some. ;D
 
sferrin said:
TaiidanTomcat said:
Geoff_B said:
So how many of you are signed up members of this LM officially sanctioned group ?

Do we think Airpower Australia is a LM officially sanctioned group?

http://www.ausairpower.net/raptor.html

Quite the advertisement there. Astro-turfing?

F-22-Banner-2009.png


Too subtle?

See, if the US rebuilds the production line Carlo thinks Australia will get some. ;D

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MacGuffin:

MACGUFFIN

MacGuffin (a.k.a. McGuffin or maguffin) is a term for a motivating element in a story that is used to drive the plot. It actually serves no further purpose. It won't pop up again later, it won't explain the ending, it won't actually do anything except possibly distract you while you try to figure out its significance. In some cases, it won't even be shown. It is usually a mysterious package/artifact/superweapon that everyone in the story is chasing.

I do enjoy them pimping Lockheed Martin though. If the F-35 was canceled tomorrow we would instantly see Kopp and Kompany forget the JSF collapse , go completely 180, and start with LM "being the world's premier and most honest aircraft manufacturer, with an illustrious history, excellent marketing, and brilliant craftsmanship that is without parallel in the global techno strategic aerial weapons harmonious vectorsphere. And they are not at all the thieving, lying, monsters we have been portraying without remorse the last 5 years"

Oh and of course they will need a new disclaimer:

APA Notice

This article predates the mid December, 2006, announcement by Defence that Super Hornets may be sought as gap fillers for the RAAF, and subsequent decision to acquire these aircraft. The article does not constitute an endorsement of that proposal in any fashion and should not be interpreted to be such by any parties. It concentrates primarily on the history and flying qualities of the aircraft. Any attempt to present this article as an endorsement of the Super Hornet decision will be considered to be intentional and mischievous misrepresentation.

http://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html
 
http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/fedbiz_daily/2013/05/three-claims-about-the-f-35-price-tag.html?page=all

There is a standard phrase that I and other reporters use to describe Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in some form: the costliest program in the Pentagon's portfolio. Accurate? Yes. But not all together fair either, company executives would argue.
At Bethesda-based Lockheed's media day Tuesday, I spoke to a few executives about this — all grimaced when the topic of cost and the F-35 was brought up. That's not because they felt the company overspent, they'll tell you, but because the media has painted program costs to be out of control.

"We're not getting our due credit for cost reductions we've had," Greg Dahlberg, senior vice president of Washington operations said in an interview with Washington Business Journal. "It's hard to break through the media. It's a hard program to describe simply."
Some clarification may be in order, argued Dahlberg and Steve O'Brien, vice president of F-35 business development for Lockheed (NYSE: LMT). So here it is.

Claim: The cost of the program is averaging about 11 percent above what was promised.

More specifically, the total cost of the first four contracts for 63 planes was $12.28 billion — 10.9 percent more than the amount awarded under the original contracts, according to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office.

"In any development program, the unit costs change year to year," Dahlberg said. "It better come down — and it is. People pick a point in time and extend a straight line [for the duration of the program], but it's a curve."

Indeed, that same GAO report noted that production costs seem to be steadying.The lowest cost overrun came from the last and largest contract for 32 aircraft — 6.5 percent. Aircraft labor hours to build the F-35 are decreasing with more experience, according to the report, and "the program is moving down the learning curve as projected."

Claim: Unit costs are about 20 percent more than for predecessor fighter jets.

As noted in a July 2011 article from Air Force magazine — yes, this debate has been going on for quite some time — older aircraft do not have the stealth, advanced avionics or other fifth-generation features of the F-35.

"We won't put out numbers to poke, because the government needs to do that," O'Brien said. "But this is much more multimission capable. How do you quantify that? Hence the problem."

He also noted that costs not tied directly to plane production are built into the F-35 cost estimates — despite not being included in cost estimates for prior generations.

"You need to understand what's in the cost," he said. "When you include the guy who cuts the grass at the base, it's not apples to apples. ... How do you get an apples to apples comparison when you did accounting in a different way?"

Claim: The operating cost for the F-35 is estimated to be $1 trillion.

This point has gotten a lot of headlines since it emerged during a May 2011 hearing. But worth noting, O'Brien said, is that 40 percent of cost estimates are inflation.

Additionally, the estimate is for an expected 50-year life span, based on the assumption that each airplane will be around for a couple of decade after its produced and the final planes will go into operation 30 years from now.

Typically, the Defense Department does not estimate weapons costs as far out as 50 years, like it did with the F-35, Dahlberg said. "You take an aircraft carrier, include cost for refueling and such, and over 50 years you might get a big number too."

So then — even as the big numbers shock the general public and members of the media, is the message of the big picture getting through to those that matter?

"We're plowing through. The discussion has been more good than bad, but it's a big department," Dahlberg said. "What Deputy Secretary Ash Carter has told us is that affordability is the mantra, and 'if you deliver, we'll reward you.' We're taking them at their word."
 
One down...
Gripen Pulls Out of Canada Fighter Competition


(Source: defense-aerospace.com; published June 3, 2013)

PARIS --- In a surprise reversal, Sweden’s Saab has decided to pull out of Canada’s fledging fighter competition, although it may rejoin later if conditions change, the company said June 3. Saab is the first of the five competitors to pull out, but other competitors also have expressed doubts that the competition will be fair and open.


“Saab followed the discussions in Canada with interest [but] at this time and stage of the evaluation process, Saab has decided not to take part,” the company said in a June 3 e-mail message. “Our conclusion is that the conditions were not yet ripe for us to act.”


Saab’s withdrawal is all the more surprising that, just days before the week-end, it appeared eager to continue the competition. Saab executive vice-president Patrick Palmer was quoted by Postmedia news May 31 as saying that “I think [Canada] really [has] a desire to get the information. I don’t think they have a predefined outcome. And we are supportive of it.”


In a June 3 e-mailed statement, Saab spokeswoman Karin Walka added that “as the customer continues to mature their process and further define the way forward, Saab will re-evaluate this decision, based on our assessment the Government of Canada’s requirements, to see if and how Saab can take part in the continuing process as well as the applicability of any potential Saab solution.”


Canadian officials quoted May 31 by the Sun News Network say the possibility of buying Saab fighters is not permanently discounted. "Not participating in the market analysis in no way precludes a company from participating in any potential, future competitive process," one official said.


Saab had expressed interest in competing to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force’s fleet of CF-18 Hornet fighters, in which Boeing (F-18E), Dassault Aviation (Rafale) and Eurofighter (Typhoon) are competing against the Lockheed-Martin F-35, which the Canadian government was publicly committed to buy until its skyrocketing price, technical problems and a particularly slanted procurement process forced it to “re-set” the project in December.


“Defence companies whose fighter jets are competing against the F-35 stealth fighter have raised concerns about the new way bureaucrats are evaluating options for Canada’s next warplane,” Postmedia newspapers reported May 31, adding that “There are worries F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin continues to enjoy a distinct advantage despite the Conservative government’s promise to push the reset button, with some saying the best solution is an open competition.”


To restore confidence, the Canadian government took responsibility for managing the fighter procurement process away from the Department of National Defence and moved it to a newly-created National Fighter Procurement Secretariat (NFPS) which prepared a 7-point plan to which it is scrupulously adhering.


However, industrial benefits obtained to date by Canadian industry in the F-35 program – US$488 million as of last week – the strong bias previously shown by the government, the DND and the RCAF in favor of the F-35 has left some manufacturers pretty dubious about the competition’s fairness.


“The best proof that this is a genuine process would be arriving at the end of this year with a decision to really open a competition,” said Dassault senior vice-president Yves Robins.


Describing its progress to date, the Fighter Secretariat said in a May 31 statement that “The focus of…. work over the past few months has been on the…. evaluation of options. Companies with available aircraft have been engaged through questionnaires on fighter aircraft capabilities, price and industrial benefits. Companies were briefed on the assessment methodology for the capability questionnaire on May 3, 2013 and price and industrial benefits questionnaires on May 31, 2013.”


It also said that its “methodology, the three questionnaires and the approach to options analysis have been developed by the Secretariat and the Royal Canadian Air Force, and reviewed and challenged by the Independent Review Panel”, which meets regularly and ensures “the work to evaluate options is both rigorous and impartial.”


Saab notes in its statement that “We continue our focus on currently on-going Gripen campaigns in the rest of the world as well as the continuing process to provide the Gripen E (the next generation) to Sweden and potentially to Switzerland.”.


-ends-
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddQ-OoUraqs

Bill Sweetman question the effectiveness of stealth.
 
EricChase88 said:
Bill Sweetman question the effectiveness of stealth.

This is news to you? ???

That video has been making the rounds all over the net and getting a lot of laughs.

From the Video:

Sweetman "Clearly this aircraft has been designed as a counter to stealth aircraft." (at 1:51)

Sweetman "Its a version of an aircraft first flown in the 70s, fielded in the 80s" (2:23)

I am impressed at the Soviet's Foresight ;D I wonder what this means for the Eurofighter and F-22, which of course were built to specifically counter Flankers, and more than a tad maneuverable themselves WVR.

for more on the origin of the "utter tosh" as bill would say about the missiles mentioned in the first part of the video here is an expert site:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?123370-F-35-Debate-thread-(2)/page27

Just kidding its online forum. He takes what is said but several posters and regurgitates it in the video. Cheers.
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
EricChase88 said:
Bill Sweetman question the effectiveness of stealth.

This is news to you? ???

That video has been making the rounds all over the net and getting a lot of laughs.

Oh my Gosh the Cobra maneuver - me sometime in the 80's

Question as I am not Tom Skerritt - In air to air combat the SU-35 would be detected first, fired upon and then have to go defensive to dodge the missile if it detected the missile. Would you not always be at a disadvantage having to go defensive and couldn't a stealth plane keep you defensive? The Su-35 is flinging itself all over the sky dodging A2A missiles and you calmly fly in for the kill?
 
Stealth is useless. Why wont the Worlds premier airforces accept this simple fact that even people on the internet already know? India needs to cancel its AMCA and ask Russia to "un-stealth" their birds. Drop PAKFA. Japan, China, South Korea, Turkey....their indigenous programs are clearly misguided. Especially the ones that have an uncanny resemblance to the F-35 and 22 The JSF countries need to wake up and smell the coffee. Don't they realize that the conventional wisdom on certain internet forums dictates a laser like emphasis on turnin' and burnin'? Situational awareness, Stealth...you can't see those capabilities at an airshow, so they aren't important. ;D

The part of that video that I found funniest was the idea that it would be rational to "cede the first shot" as a strategy. That would lead to less than optimal results. Even if they can avoid the first missile, why are they not assumed to be continually under fire until they arrive at the merge? What pilot is going to want to go to war thinking, "if I can just dodge those missiles till I find these guys and get in close"?
 
bobbymike said:
Question as I am not Tom Skerritt - In air to air combat the SU-35 would be detected first, fired upon and then have to go defensive to dodge the missile if it detected the missile. Would you not always be at a disadvantage having to go defensive and couldn't a stealth plane keep you defensive? The Su-35 is flinging itself all over the sky dodging A2A missiles and you calmly fly in for the kill?


It would, unless it can take a shot at the radar that detected it. So there are two interesting questions. Can Su-35 approach E-3 Sentry close enough to fire R-77 (or R-37) before it is detected? And if F-22/35 detects Su-35 and fires AMRAAM at its maximum range, it will need to briefly track the Su-35 again to provide a mid-course update to the missile. Is this enough for the Su-35 to estimate the F-22/35's position well enough to accurately fire its R-77s?
 
According to Wikipedia, the E-3 has a detection range of 400km against low-flying targets, and 650km against targets at medium-high altitude.

With the R-77M having a range of 80-160km, I think the Su-35 would have some trouble delivering a successful strike without being detected.

As for the scenario where the the Su-35S is on the defensive; obviously that's going to be extremely circumstantial and dependent on classified data.
 
Dragon029 said:
According to Wikipedia, the E-3 has a detection range of 400km against low-flying targets, and 650km against targets at medium-high altitude.

With the R-77M having a range of 80-160km, I think the Su-35 would have some trouble delivering a successful strike without being detected.

As for the scenario where the the Su-35S is on the defensive; obviously that's going to be extremely circumstantial and dependent on classified data.

Especially since the AWACS won't be undefended. The Su-35 would have a short and exciting life.
 
Dragon029 said:
According to Wikipedia, the E-3 has a detection range of 400km against low-flying targets, and 650km against targets at medium-high altitude.
With the R-77M having a range of 80-160km, I think the Su-35 would have some trouble delivering a successful strike without being detected.
We don't know what sort of target is assumed here. If it's something like Tu-142 or Tu-160, the detection range against Su-35 could be about half that. Also, fairly small changes (like in Super Hornet) are claimed to reduce RCS by an order of magnitude, which would again almost half the detection range. Either of the above would put the E-3 into range of R-37, and both combined would put it into range of R-77.


As for being defended, I am not sure what can be done once a missile is launched. There is no question of E-3 evading it. Perhaps the missile can be jammed if its launch is detected early enough? And trading one Su-35 for one E-3 seems like a fair trade.
 
As for being defended, I am not sure what can be done once a missile is launched. There is no question of E-3 evading it. Perhaps the missile can be jammed if its launch is detected early enough? And trading one Su-35 for one E-3 seems like a fair trade.

So just send one SU-35 to kill the sitting duck/undefended AWACs. Why wouldn't the AWACs detect the big radar reflecting 1970's aircraft and vector fighters to it? the Su-35 pilot will be remembered fondly I'm sure, but "sneaking up" on an AWACs is not easy to do especially in an aircraft that shows up like a signal flare on the scope. They are well aware of enemy aircraft, that is their job after all.

Is this enough for the Su-35 to estimate the F-22/35's position well enough to accurately fire its R-77s?

No. Thats why AESA radars are in vogue, they are extremely hard to detect. Low Obeservability is not just radar, its IR, and Signal reduction as well. even then, by ceding the first shot the Flanker pilot may be a bit "busy" dodging incoming fire to look.

fairly small changes (like in Super Hornet)

Those were not "fairly small changes" serpentine intakes, radar blockers, and a completely redesigned fuselage, along with RAM are a few of the things that come to mind with the Super Hornet. I see none of that with this Flanker or any other Flanker iteration for that matter. Even canted tail fins would be a step in the right direction, but they don't even bother with that.

HTH
 
AdamF said:
As for being defended, I am not sure what can be done once a missile is launched. There is no question of E-3 evading it. Perhaps the missile can be jammed if its launch is detected early enough? And trading one Su-35 for one E-3 seems like a fair trade.

It sounds like you have no clue how AWACS works. The Su-35 would have an exceedingly tough time even getting close enough to launch a missile at one.
 
AdamF said:
bobbymike said:
Question as I am not Tom Skerritt - In air to air combat the SU-35 would be detected first, fired upon and then have to go defensive to dodge the missile if it detected the missile. Would you not always be at a disadvantage having to go defensive and couldn't a stealth plane keep you defensive? The Su-35 is flinging itself all over the sky dodging A2A missiles and you calmly fly in for the kill?


It would, unless it can take a shot at the radar that detected it. So there are two interesting questions. Can Su-35 approach E-3 Sentry close enough to fire R-77 (or R-37) before it is detected? And if F-22/35 detects Su-35 and fires AMRAAM at its maximum range, it will need to briefly track the Su-35 again to provide a mid-course update to the missile. Is this enough for the Su-35 to estimate the F-22/35's position well enough to accurately fire its R-77s?

Answer to the first question is no. Definitely not without getting killed first. Is there a way to get to an AWACS? I don't know.

Any ideas? Air launching an S-300 class weapon? Could it work?
 
Wired magazine's "Danger Room" staff revolted and quit because management wouldn't let them publish this:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/69dcb831fae
 
sferrin said:
sublight is back said:
Wired magazine's "Danger Room" staff revolted and quit because management wouldn't let them publish this:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/69dcb831fae

If it's such a steaming pile even Wired wouldn't publish it, why bother us with it?

Danger Room went steadily downhill after 'Journolister' Spencer Ackerman joined and made everything political and that influenced the other writers whose stories were less and less 'technological'. No matter what the story 'fighting in Eritria' for example they would somehow bring Cheney or Rumsfeld into the story.
 
BioLuminescentLamprey said:
Answer to the first question is no. Definitely not without getting killed first. Is there a way to get to an AWACS? I don't know.

Any ideas? Air launching an S-300 class weapon? Could it work?

The Russians have an entire group of missiles for dealing with the likes of AWACS, J-Stars and KCs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-100_%28missile%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-37_%28missile%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-33_%28missile%29

The West has no such thing, and the West has probably no good anti-VLO capability either.
Look at Russia if you want to find counters to stuff the West relies on militarily.
 
lastdingo said:
BioLuminescentLamprey said:
Answer to the first question is no. Definitely not without getting killed first. Is there a way to get to an AWACS? I don't know.

Any ideas? Air launching an S-300 class weapon? Could it work?

The Russians have an entire group of missiles for dealing with the likes of AWACS, J-Stars and KCs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-100_%28missile%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-37_%28missile%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-33_%28missile%29

The West has no such thing, and the West has probably no good anti-VLO capability either.
Look at Russia if you want to find counters to stuff the West relies on militarily.

The R-33 is the only one in service. And good luck with that.
 
lastdingo said:
BioLuminescentLamprey said:
Answer to the first question is no. Definitely not without getting killed first. Is there a way to get to an AWACS? I don't know.

Any ideas? Air launching an S-300 class weapon? Could it work?

The Russians have an entire group of missiles for dealing with the likes of AWACS, J-Stars and KCs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-100_%28missile%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-37_%28missile%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-33_%28missile%29

The West has no such thing, and the West has probably no good anti-VLO capability either.
Look at Russia if you want to find counters to stuff the West relies on militarily.

What is "anti-VLO capability"? I'm not aware of anything serious out there. A bunch of gossip about passive radars and cell phone towers. Let's see how long those things last in an actual conflict. These things can't be hidden and are dependent on being networked....knock out one node and the rest of the system will be degraded immediately. Corridors can be opened. CHAMP missiles, MALD-J, NGJ, stealth fighters with EW capabilities. Those seem like effective weapons to me. The "anti-stealth" stuff, I have strong doubts about that. The best counter to VLO is to have your own VLO aircraft, good jamming, good networking etc.

By the way, how would the West (US), that has VLO fighters and bombers for decades already, not know the most about their capabilities? Why would others, who don't have access to the systems or technologies, know the most about defeating them? It doesn't add up.

The West doesn't need a lot of anti-awacs weapons, because there is noone out there right now that has many AWACS. The Russians don't have too many, as their doctrine doesn't emphasize their use. The Chinese will need a long time to get these on the ramp too. They don't have many either. If something is needed, there will be time to develop it.

How many of those R-33 are even in stock? How many are integrated with fighters for actual use? What is their track record? Can they be intercepted, jammed, countered? We would need to know the answer to all those questions and more, before getting bent out of shape about it.
 
lastdingo said:
BioLuminescentLamprey said:
Answer to the first question is no. Definitely not without getting killed first. Is there a way to get to an AWACS? I don't know.

Any ideas? Air launching an S-300 class weapon? Could it work?

The Russians have an entire group of missiles for dealing with the likes of AWACS, J-Stars and KCs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-100_%28missile%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-37_%28missile%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-33_%28missile%29

The West has no such thing, and the West has probably no good anti-VLO capability either.
Look at Russia if you want to find counters to stuff the West relies on militarily.

I have read several articles that I would have to scour my archives for but they basically said - and yes it was some facts some speculation - that the US has been working in top secret since way back in F-117 days to develop counter stealth 1) To be able to 'counter' counter-stealth and 2) knowing that at some point in the future they would be going up against stealthy platforms. One of the lesser known sides of new weapon systems procurement is that usually there is a parallel 'red team' effort to counter the same technology if we were ever to face it in combat.

So like BLL said how could others have more knowledge of counter stealth than the country that has invested hundreds of billions in stealth programs over the past 30 + years.
 
sublight is back said:
Wired magazine's "Danger Room" staff revolted and quit

really? that would be great. maybe I can start reading wired again. :D

isn't that story old? Bronc reading that months ago influenced him so much he started accusing posters here of being paid spokespeople until he was banned
 
The West has no such thing, and the West has probably no good anti-VLO capability either.

You had me at "probably" :D Are you really upset that the US has yet invent a specific missile to destroy the type of aircraft that the enemy doesn't even have?
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
sublight is back said:
Wired magazine's "Danger Room" staff revolted and quit

really? that would be great. maybe I can start reading wired again. :D

isn't that story old? Bronc reading that months ago influenced him so much he started accusing posters here of being paid spokespeople until he was banned


Regardless of how you feel about Bronk and the old wired staff, Astroturfing is generally considered to be a "slimy" thing to do. The program is already so deep in the "controversy" zone (this might as well be the "The Roe V Wade No Holds Barred topic") that any too clever PR tricks are just going to cause more harm than good.
 
sublight is back said:
Regardless of how you feel about Bronk and the old wired staff, Astroturfing is generally considered to be a "slimy" thing to do. The program is already so deep in the "controversy" zone (this might as well be the "The Roe V Wade No Holds Barred topic") that any too clever PR tricks are just going to cause more harm than good.

how is LM's JSF astroturfing and lobbying any different than any other company doing the same thing with their aircraft? Saab is notorious for spoiling aviation writers with drinks and dinners for example. If you think that Boeing didn't recently pull every trick in the book including AstroTurf for the recent KC-X contract, you have another coming:

http://sacurrent.com/news/members-allege-the-american-gi-forum-has-been-shilling-for-boeing-big-oil-and-at-amp-t-1.1202783

I'm not defending LM or astro turfing. I do have a problem though when only one side is presented as the evil empire for something both sides do, but only one side is mentioned because it helps push an agenda.

I also didn't appreciate bronc suddenly deciding that the only people who have knowledge of this aircraft and thusly support it, must be paid shills of course, because he had made up his mind a long time ago.

what got turned on wired was when David Axe grossly inflated the cost of a cashed F-22 in order to have a more eye popping headline. He included the lifetime cost of the aircraft, which seems a little odd considering the aircraft had no lifetime cost anymore as it was crashed and gone forever. but its wrong to manipulate the public with shenanigans like that isn't it?

Boeing astrotruf:

http://www.enviroreporter.com/2012/12/operation-astroturf/all/1/
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
sublight is back said:
Regardless of how you feel about Bronk and the old wired staff, Astroturfing is generally considered to be a "slimy" thing to do. The program is already so deep in the "controversy" zone (this might as well be the "The Roe V Wade No Holds Barred topic") that any too clever PR tricks are just going to cause more harm than good.

how is LM's JSF astroturfing and lobbying any different than any other company doing the same thing with their aircraft? Saab is notorious for spoiling aviation writers with drinks and dinners for example. If you think that Boeing didn't recently pull every trick in the book including AstroTurf for the recent KC-X contract, you have another coming:

http://sacurrent.com/news/members-allege-the-american-gi-forum-has-been-shilling-for-boeing-big-oil-and-at-amp-t-1.1202783

I'm not defending LM or astro turfing. I do have a problem though when only one side is presented as the evil empire for something both sides do, but only one side is mentioned because it helps push an agenda.

I also didn't appreciate bronc suddenly deciding that the only people who have knowledge of this aircraft and thusly support it, must be paid shills of course, because he had made up his mind a long time ago.

what got turned on wired was when David Axe grossly inflated the cost of a cashed F-22 in order to have a more eye popping headline. He included the lifetime cost of the aircraft, which seems a little odd considering the aircraft had no lifetime cost anymore as it was crashed and gone forever. but its wrong to manipulate the public with shenanigans like that isn't it?

Boeing astrotruf:

http://www.enviroreporter.com/2012/12/operation-astroturf/all/1/

David Axe just wrote an article about the Rafale v F-22 shootdown and after several paragraphs of 'This is the end of the world for US air superiority' he ends with 'But since we don't know the ROE we really can't conclude anything' NOW THAT'S good writing NOT!
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
sublight is back said:
Regardless of how you feel about Bronk and the old wired staff, Astroturfing is generally considered to be a "slimy" thing to do. The program is already so deep in the "controversy" zone (this might as well be the "The Roe V Wade No Holds Barred topic") that any too clever PR tricks are just going to cause more harm than good.

how is LM's JSF astroturfing and lobbying any different than any other company doing the same thing with their aircraft? Saab is notorious for spoiling aviation writers with drinks and dinners for example. If you think that Boeing didn't recently pull every trick in the book including AstroTurf for the recent KC-X contract, you have another coming:

http://sacurrent.com/news/members-allege-the-american-gi-forum-has-been-shilling-for-boeing-big-oil-and-at-amp-t-1.1202783

I'm not defending LM or astro turfing. I do have a problem though when only one side is presented as the evil empire for something both sides do, but only one side is mentioned because it helps push an agenda.

I also didn't appreciate bronc suddenly deciding that the only people who have knowledge of this aircraft and thusly support it, must be paid shills of course, because he had made up his mind a long time ago.

what got turned on wired was when David Axe grossly inflated the cost of a cashed F-22 in order to have a more eye popping headline. He included the lifetime cost of the aircraft, which seems a little odd considering the aircraft had no lifetime cost anymore as it was crashed and gone forever. but its wrong to manipulate the public with shenanigans like that isn't it?

Boeing astrotruf:

http://www.enviroreporter.com/2012/12/operation-astroturf/all/1/

Wow, you are really going out of your way to interpret my mention of what happened to the Wired staff as "anti Lockheed". What I specifically said was "anti Astroturf". Yes, if Boeing did it, then their just as bad. In closing, may I just bring to your attention that you might be getting a little bit too "fanboyish" on the subject?
 
I don't like one sided reporting, and the F-35 as you point out has become so controversial, with so many biased self appointed "experts" that are extremely selective about what they report, that the bad things that others do tend to be swept under the rug, to the point that everything the negative about the F-35 seems unprecedented.

If being sensitive to the overt double standard, makes me sound like a fanboy... well Ive been called worse.
 
How many Pro and how many Cons about this fighter ?
From Pro and Cons of this fighter i presume is a mediocre fighter ! ( not bad and also not excellent ) ::)
 
I’ll Bite B)
Pros (combat configured):
VLO
Lowered IR Signature
Meets or beats most current 4th gen assets that it is replacing re: kinematics
LPI Radar
EODAS
HMD Gen3
IRST
ESM
LPI & Directional Datalinks
Fully integrated avionics
Large user base ensures cheaper & quicker updates, parts, etc
Software jet
UAI


Cons:
Cost
Schedule
KPPs have slipped a little
 
BioLuminescentLamprey said:
Stealth is useless. Why wont the Worlds premier airforces accept this simple fact that even people on the internet already know? India needs to cancel its AMCA and ask Russia to "un-stealth" their birds. Drop PAKFA. Japan, China, South Korea, Turkey....their indigenous programs are clearly misguided. Especially the ones that have an uncanny resemblance to the F-35 and 22 The JSF countries need to wake up and smell the coffee. Don't they realize that the conventional wisdom on certain internet forums dictates a laser like emphasis on turnin' and burnin'? Situational awareness, Stealth...you can't see those capabilities at an airshow, so they aren't important. ;D

The part of that video that I found funniest was the idea that it would be rational to "cede the first shot" as a strategy. That would lead to less than optimal results. Even if they can avoid the first missile, why are they not assumed to be continually under fire until they arrive at the merge? What pilot is going to want to go to war thinking, "if I can just dodge those missiles till I find these guys and get in close"?


Maybe the Russian emphasis is a cheap counter to the expensive stealth approach the USA has chosen. The new Su-35 can use those jinking maneuvers and countermeasures to help break a missile lock. They want to avoid the missiles rather than the fighter. They try and then detect and get in visual range with the stealth fighter. The Russians seem confident they can do this to defeat the western systems. If their approach works then stealth will be exposed as the most expensive failed idea yet that that the F-35 was supposed to represent.


The most serious question RE the f-35 is the cost issue. Why is the f-35 becoming so astronomically expensive? It was (supposed) to represent the economic solution to fighter design cost and is the exact opposite of what we were told it would be. Where is the outrage here. Taxpayers are footing this bill. Regardless if the f-35 can perform miracles and turn water into wine while ruling the skies, it should be cancelled for cost reasons alone and someone(s) at Lockheed martin should be doing jail time.
 
Maybe the Russian emphasis is a cheap counter to the expensive stealth approach the USA has chosen.

Maybe the russian emphasis on a cheap counter is because they have no money for aircraft or R&D, so we get another warmed over flanker. what is the price of an Su-35S or PAKFA anyway? :eek:

The new Su-35 can use those jinking maneuvers and countermeasures to help break a missile lock.

source needed ;)

They want to avoid the missiles rather than the fighter. They try and then detect and get in visual range with the stealth fighter.

ceding the enemy the first shot seems a brilliant strategy. Hope is not a course of action, and I have no clue why the stealth fighter would play along and close to detection range, let alone visual range.

The Russians seem confident they can do this to defeat the western systems.

why the PAKFA then?

If their approach works then stealth will be exposed as the most expensive failed idea yet that that the F-35 was supposed to represent.

and if maneuverability fails?

The F-35 is not the only LO aircraft. Stealth aircraft have been being used in combat since 1989 in thousands of sorties. one loss so far.

The most serious question RE the f-35 is the cost issue. Why is the f-35 becoming so astronomically expensive?

becoming? the price is going down.


It was (supposed) to represent the economic solution to fighter design cost and is the exact opposite of what we were told it would be.

well its looking like 85 million dollars by 2020. that is 75 million in todays dollars. a FY2012 Super Hornet for the USN is 67 million.

Where is the outrage here.

guess how I know you havn't read this thread? ;D

Taxpayers are footing this bill.

yes, as they would with any other aircraft.

Regardless if the f-35 can perform miracles and turn water into wine while ruling the skies,

indeed, why that should that play any part in consideration for a combat aircraft. if capability doesn't matter and cost is everything, I can sell the RCAF a Cessna 172 right now. Tell em to call me.

it should be cancelled for cost reasons alone and someone(s) at Lockheed martin should be doing jail time.

If you can find something cheaper for Canada I'm all ears. If we locked people up for delays and cost escalation the defense gulag would rival the US federal prison system.
 
kcran567 said:
BioLuminescentLamprey said:
Stealth is useless. Why wont the Worlds premier airforces accept this simple fact that even people on the internet already know? India needs to cancel its AMCA and ask Russia to "un-stealth" their birds. Drop PAKFA. Japan, China, South Korea, Turkey....their indigenous programs are clearly misguided. Especially the ones that have an uncanny resemblance to the F-35 and 22 The JSF countries need to wake up and smell the coffee. Don't they realize that the conventional wisdom on certain internet forums dictates a laser like emphasis on turnin' and burnin'? Situational awareness, Stealth...you can't see those capabilities at an airshow, so they aren't important. ;D

The part of that video that I found funniest was the idea that it would be rational to "cede the first shot" as a strategy. That would lead to less than optimal results. Even if they can avoid the first missile, why are they not assumed to be continually under fire until they arrive at the merge? What pilot is going to want to go to war thinking, "if I can just dodge those missiles till I find these guys and get in close"?


Maybe the Russian emphasis is a cheap counter to the expensive stealth approach the USA has chosen. The new Su-35 can use those jinking maneuvers and countermeasures to help break a missile lock. They want to avoid the missiles rather than the fighter. They try and then detect and get in visual range with the stealth fighter. The Russians seem confident they can do this to defeat the western systems. If their approach works then stealth will be exposed as the most expensive failed idea yet that that the F-35 was supposed to represent.


The most serious question RE the f-35 is the cost issue. Why is the f-35 becoming so astronomically expensive? It was (supposed) to represent the economic solution to fighter design cost and is the exact opposite of what we were told it would be. Where is the outrage here. Taxpayers are footing this bill. Regardless if the f-35 can perform miracles and turn water into wine while ruling the skies, it should be cancelled for cost reasons alone and someone(s) at Lockheed martin should be doing jail time.

If you go back and read the thread, you'll see that myself and others have already discussed and dealt with this stuff that you're bringing up.

The idea that getting shot at first by an unseen opponent is ok, because you'll just "confuse the missile" and then somehow, although you lose through maneuver your situational awareness, tactical position and especially that energy and those amazing kinematic advantages (such that they actually exist to a tactically significant level) is lost as well. Meanwhile the fighters (because real air combat is not a 1vs1 dual) that fired on you in the first place are continuing to fire on you and your companions as you depart from your battle plan "jinking and jiving". Engaging in this kind of behavior would be suicidal and frantic maneuvering will cause a pilot to completely lose sit awareness...and this is at the same time as, in this outlandish scenario at least, the SU35 should be closing to WVR at a kinetic advantage, going from flipping around dodging missiles, maybe using post stall maneuvers (a total fantasy in that case) to attacking with a tactical advantage. All of this is predicated on crossing from BVR to WVR under missile fire, from an opponent you didn't see first. That is a specious scenario. It's actually a laughable scenario.

Assuming that you survive, in your flanker, till WVR. Is that a good place to be? Probably not, as HOBS missiles and HMCS are fielded against you.


It's just a fantasy. Obviously so, imo. The Russians can try to sell this; it's clearly re-marketing of the same exceptional maneuverability we've always seen in Flankers. They definitely don't plan to use their SU-35s that way against 5th gens. They're, of course, trying to build another fighter to deal with other 5th gens. The merits of the PAKFA belong on a different thread, suffice it to say the SU-35 is an interim fighter while waiting for the PAK. They would love to sell some of these fighters. Unfortunately, there isn't a whole lot to distinguish the maneuverability of the Su-35 from the other previous, already highly-maneuverable SU-27/30 etc. These fighters are known quantities at this point. We actually have some flankers down at Nellis and we've also flown against them in exercises. They constitute the threats that F-22 and 35 were designed to have for breakfast.

I don't know why, but I've been baited into this again. Sometimes it seems like we've already deconstructed these rather unusual and interesting theories before on this thread. Oh yeah, we have.


Also, it is not going to be more expensive to buy an F-35, than to buy a Typhoon or Rafale. The numbers that are coming from the Government (not Lockheed) now show it on track to only slightly exceed it's projected cost. LRIP purchases are going to cost more, using certain metrics, compared to FRP prices that 4th gen fighters can offer. To get much greater capabilities at close to the same price you'd pay for a 4th gen alternative...that would be considered to be a good deal.

That's why everyone is buying it. It's gotten a horrible reputation publicly, from hack media coverage, but the politicians are still willing to risk offending the public in order to buy the fighter that their Air Forces are asking for. They are asking for this capability, because it will work, not because they feel like taking a gamble on "stealth". The transition to the 5th Gen represents the movement of all modern militaries toward Netcentric Warfare. The F-35 facilitates and enable that organically. It is a node in a network, and a powerful ISR/EW platform as well as a kinetic fighter. That's about a lot more than VLO stealth. Again, this is really fundamental to understand; platforms capabilities by themselves cannot be validly compared outside of the systems context in which they operate against each other.
 
airman said:
From Pro and Cons of this fighter i presume is a mediocre fighter ! ( not bad and also not excellent ) ::)


How do you come up with such an assessment without any details?
 
kcran567 said:
The most serious question RE the f-35 is the cost issue. Why is the f-35 becoming so astronomically expensive?


And how exactly is the F-35 different from any other equivalent advanced combat platform in the Western world?? :eek:



kcran567 said:
Taxpayers are footing this bill.


Check your facts - many of the companies involved, right down to small bit players are putting their own money into the F-35 as well! ::)




kcran567 said:
Regardless if the f-35 can perform miracles and turn water into wine while ruling the skies, it should be cancelled for cost reasons alone


And then what??? :eek:


kcran567 said:
someone(s) at Lockheed martin should be doing jail time.


For what? Trying to satisfy their customers? For delivering a standard setting product? :eek:


BTW, enough of this old garbage of simply blaming Lockheed Martin - there are also Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and Pratt&Whitney all equally involved here...not to mention the numerous Govt partners.
 
BioLuminescentLamprey said:
It's just a fantasy. Obviously so, imo. The Russians can try to sell this; it's clearly re-marketing of the same exceptional maneuverability we've always seen in Flankers. They definitely don't plan to use their SU-35s that way against 5th gens. They're, of course, trying to build another fighter to deal with other 5th gens. The merits of the PAKFA belong on a different thread, suffice it to say the SU-35 is an interim fighter while waiting for the PAK. They would love to sell some of these fighters. Unfortunately, there isn't a whole lot to distinguish the maneuverability of the Su-35 from the other previous, already highly-maneuverable SU-27/30 etc. These fighters are known quantities at this point. We actually have some flankers down at Nellis and we've also flown against them in exercises. They constitute the threats that F-22 and 35 were designed to have for breakfast.

Ding! ding! ding!! We have a winner!! even the test pilot said it is as manueverable as an Su-30MKI. So I'm guessing if stealth wasn't all the rage, if the F-35/ F-22 used a warp drive the Su-35S would be marketed as the anti warp drive fighter. why? because they are trying to sell airplanes. I don't remember them marketing the MKI as missile dodging anti stealth.

I can only imagine the kind of Komrade Fanboi rage that would take place if the US put TVC in an F-15C and declared it the anti PAKFA, and even when the PAKFA sneaks up on the F-15C undetected; the F-15 manuevers, and beats it everytime. because 'murica.

also why is the F-35 WVR dogfighting a flanker in broad daylight when it has EODAS to see in the darkness and the flanker does not? We all know that the US/NATO initial attacks are always at night right? and they only fly in daylight after the defenses are pretty much neutralized?

there are also Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and Pratt&Whitney all equally involved here...not to mention the numerous Govt partners.

we don't need details when assigning blame, thank you. ;) you are just complicating the narrative
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom